MAHESH DANGAYACH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the Notification dated 8th May, 2012 issued by the State Government under Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 (for short "the Rules of 2004"). A further challenge is made to the order passed by the Collector (Stamps) and subsequent order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board on a revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) It is a case where the petitioner produced an instrument for its registration. It was after disclosing the value of the land to be Rs. 67,11,000/- and, accordingly, stamps were affixed. The Collector (Stamps) served a notice on the petitioner showing insufficiency of stamps. After hearing the petitioner, the Collector (Stamps) took DLC rate of the residential land of the area concerned to determine the value of the land and directed to pay additional stamp-fee. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector but it was not interfered upto the Rajasthan Tax Board. A challenge to the orders passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board and the Collector (Stamps) has been made.

(3.) The only argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that value of the land should have been determined on the basis of use of the land at the time of presentation of the instrument. It could not have been after considering the use of the land in future. The land in question was agricultural, hence, stamp duty affixed by the petitioner was after taking DLC rate of agriculture land of the area concerned. The Collector (Stamps) and the Tax Board have grossly erred in relying on Notification dated 8th May, 2012 for determination of the value of the land. It is based on the land use given in the Master Plan or actual use, whichever is higher. The determination of stamp duty should have been after taking market value of the land. Accordingly, challenge to the Notification dated 8th May, 2012 has also been made though it remained operational only for two months or so because subsequently, it was withdrawn and superseded by another Notification dated 12th July, 2012.